gpl on pentium II 450 ?

Dear racefans, I am going to buy a Pentium II 450 with a voodoo II card next month. Is there someone who already played GPL on a system like this ? Regards, Remco

mdenesse wrote If your wondering how it will run well... That's 36fps (max limit) all the time with all the AI (19), all the graphics in 800x600 and probably a higher resolution (1024x768). I mean... that's a top notch PC ;-D - Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> Good race at the Brickyard! - Official Mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. - Excuse me for my English (I'm French speaking) - Sponsored by http://www.awpss.com/ on the NROS - "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."--

Zero problems on a P2/400 with Voodoo 2. Mike.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Dear racefans, >I am going to buy a Pentium II 450 with a voodoo II card next month. >Is there someone who already played GPL on a system like this ? >Regards, >Remco

Yep. In general, GPL on this platform flies. With all the graphics to maximum, detail bias at 100 and 1024X768 (12Mb V2 SLI), car response is excellent, with NO lack of response of any kind when locking wheels, touching the verge, etc. Frame rate is stuck at 36fps for an entire hot-lap around the 'Ring (with no traffic mind you.. I'll get to that). On my P250MMX, it would cause a hiccup in frame rate everytime you ran onto a verge, clipped a barrier, or even got into a slide - which is exactly the moment you need absolute confidence in the response to your inputs. These glitches are removed with the PII-450. However, even so, there are still a few issues regarding frame rate that can annoy. Thomas Heinemann summed it up in an earlier post... The graphics definitely seem to be running past the players viewpoint un-evenly. No amount of turning down the detail has any effect on this. IMHO this is a combination of the Voodoo2 having certain display issues with mirrors on the in-cockpit view, but mostly game engine problems, either in the rendering pipeline or physics generation. I find it hard to believe, as others have speculated, that it is a fill rate or texture swapping limitation. Turning off Sync to Vsync in the V2 properties also does nothing for the effect. Basically when hot-lapping with no other AI cars, the above is hardly noticeable; until you DO notice it. Then it puts you off. A tiny bit. BUT, turn on even just 5 cars to play against, and say goodbye to any smooth play whatever. It feels about the same as the demo used to play on my P200 before I overclocked it, and when I insisted on having full details on on my Voodoo 1. Not smooth. It seems to get really bad when the AI cars have work to do, such as trying to pass, and go round more complex sections of track (the frame counter drops to about 18fps, but the CHANGES in frame rate are always more noticeable). This, combined with the fact that watching a replay of the same section is nearly smooth ( especially if you are not in-cockpit) does tend to sugest the AI routines are un-optimised. Now I would like to think that all these 'problems' are due to it being a beta, and will be fixed for the final version; but being a cynic I think they probably won't... we'll see. To sum up, for hot-lapping, this system runs GPL as near-as-dammit perfectly. Lapping the 'Ring is AWESOME. And for that alone it is easily worth pre-ordering your copy of GPL right now. However, add some AI cars, and it's time for that PII-1000.... which is a shame, cos I would look foward to trying to out brake Jim Clark or Graham Hill (or both!) at the kurussel without having to worry if my inputs and corrections are going to be over-ridden by framerate problems... What does everyone else think? Am I spouting shite and nit-picking? Any questions? I must however say that GPL is still everything I hoped it would be.... and the final version still has'nt arrived yet! Pete Tabram

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Dear racefans, >I am going to buy a Pentium II 450 with a voodoo II card next month. >Is there someone who already played GPL on a system like this ? >Regards, >Remco

Don't you love these people who have to brag about their system by asking 'Can I play solitaire on my brand spanking new, state-of-the-art, $4,000 system that I just bought?' It's like saying 'Do you think I can use my new Ferrari to run to the corner store and pick up a paper?' Honestly, PII 450's just came out - how the hell do you think the game was developed if you're worried about performance on the top-line systems?? Keith

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Dear racefans, >I am going to buy a Pentium II 450 with a voodoo II card next month. >Is there someone who already played GPL on a system like this ? >Regards, >Remco

>>Honestly, PII 450's just came out - how the hell do you think the game was >developed if you're worried about performance on the top-line systems?? True to a point, though some games in the past (particularly prior to 3d accelerator cards) would not run max detail etc on the fastest machines at the time - easy example, Grand Prix 2 which, at maximum graphical detail, was a struggle on any machine at the time of publishing. Mike.

Actually, I think it's a legitimate question -- I tried running the GPL demo on a P200 and it was unplayable even in low-res. We've seen games before that when they came out, ran only so-so on a top-line system with all the graphics details turned on (anyone remember Grand Prix II? ) Tim

Quoted text (19 lines)

> Yep. > In general, GPL on this platform flies. With all the graphics to maximum, > detail bias at 100 and 1024X768 (12Mb V2 SLI), car response is excellent, > with NO lack of response of any kind when locking wheels, touching the > verge, etc. Frame rate is stuck at 36fps for an entire hot-lap around the > 'Ring (with no traffic mind you.. I'll get to that). > On my P250MMX, it would cause a hiccup in frame rate everytime you ran onto > a verge, clipped a barrier, or even got into a slide - which is exactly the > moment you need absolute confidence in the response to your inputs. These > glitches are removed with the PII-450. > However, even so, there are still a few issues regarding frame rate that can > annoy. Thomas Heinemann summed it up in an earlier post... > >The scenery seams to "jerk" alot in GPL... > >I mean the framerate is sort of "smooth" but "hangs" > >or "skip" a few frames a sec.

I wonder if this happens when running with a Rendition board?

Apparently, in this case it does matter, as summed up in SNAFU's post, at least with the Beta... I for one would LOVE to get 18fps with a full field of cars on the screen, but even on my p2 266, voodoo 1 6 meg, and 64 meg ram computer, it drops to around 6 or 7 at the start of races (640x480 most graphics on, detail at about 50, and cars only in the mirrors...) Adjusting graphics levels doesnt help much (only when I turn EVERYTHING down, which I cant live with either... Along with everyone else, I'm hoping it's just some debug code in the game (probably a lot of it in the AI) Or I dont know what I'm gonna do... Will moving to a voodoo 2 12 meg help at all? Brian

Quoted text (23 lines)

> Don't you love these people who have to brag about their system by asking > 'Can I play solitaire on my brand spanking new, state-of-the-art, $4,000 > system that I just bought?' > It's like saying 'Do you think I can use my new Ferrari to run to the corner > store and pick up a paper?' > Honestly, PII 450's just came out - how the hell do you think the game was > developed if you're worried about performance on the top-line systems?? > Keith > >Dear racefans, > >I am going to buy a Pentium II 450 with a voodoo II card next month. > >Is there someone who already played GPL on a system like this ? > >Regards, > >Remco

You're also going to get stuttering with the Voodoo 2 in certain cases where the scenery changes dramatically and a few cars in front of you. I tried it with a Voodoo 2 12MB on a PII 400Mhz and a V-Raptor 8MB AGP. The V-Raptor wins on image quality and speed. I haven't tried changing any settings for the Voodoo 2 like disabling v-syncing. Alex

Quoted text (17 lines)

> mdenesse wrote > >I am going to buy a Pentium II 450 with a voodoo II card next month. > >Is there someone who already played GPL on a system like this ? > If your wondering how it will run well... > That's 36fps (max limit) all the time with all the AI (19), all the graphics > in 800x600 and probably a higher resolution (1024x768). > I mean... that's a top notch PC ;-D > - Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> Good race at the Brickyard! > - Official Mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. > - Excuse me for my English (I'm French speaking) > - Sponsored by http://www.awpss.com/ on the NROS > - "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."--

<Snipperdeknip> This all is based on the Beta...But if the final version has the same problem, there is a workaround, albeit expensive... Use TWO PII-450, one hosting a MP race which will handle the AI, and one acting as a client, which you use. Add a Hyper Stimulator (Classic ofcourse!) and you got a super setup. Just don't eat for a couple of months (weight saving!), don't pay the rent, and forgot about that new car. :-) Remco

At the time of publishing? I bet you could force GP2 over the 100% mark on that lovely PII-450. Like you say Voodoo means nothing to it - just pure processor power. you can get PO of over 200% on a PII-266 *in certain situations* so I guess a PII-600+ is needed ;-) -- Mike Wallace

>Basically when hot-lapping with no other AI cars, the above is hardly >noticeable; until you DO notice it. Then it puts you off. A tiny bit. BUT, >turn on even just 5 cars to play against, and say goodbye to any smooth play >whatever. .....no...No....NOOOO.....:( This is NOT good...I would expect low framerates if I were running software-mode, but not with a PII-450 Voodoo2!? I would even accept that the framerate drops now and than, but a "Studdering" game engine, in this wonderful groundbraking sim??? I cannot belive that they are gonna ship a "broken" game engine...and in doing so, they would probebly spoil what easely could have been the best game of all time! The most worrying part is that no betatester has neither confirmed or denyed this very HUGE problem! Hmmm, lets hope so! :) Thomas Heineman

I hope I am. Let me just stress that hot-lapping with no other cars is ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC. Add some cars = major framerate stuttering. It looks similar to both the Quake2 mouse movement jerkiness problem (until they fixed it), and games that have major texture thrashing problems (although I not saying it IS texture thrashing, it just gives a similar effect). And it doesn't do it all the time. It is definitely a case of the CHANGE in framerate that messes things up. If the entire race ran at a constant 18fps (or even 8fps - being a veteran of gp1 on an A500 :-0 ) I'd be more than happy.... Pete Tabram

SNAFU skrev i meddelandet Good to hear that the quake staff fixed the problem in quake, that leaves me with some kind of hope for a patch if it isnt fixed already. And I couldnt agree more....its absolutly the cange in framerate thats the problem, not the framerate itself. (although id love to race 20 cars at steady 50fps ;) Thomas Heineman

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Yep. > > >The scenery seams to "jerk" alot in GPL... > > >I mean the framerate is sort of "smooth" but "hangs" > > >or "skip" a few frames a sec. > I wonder if this happens when running with a Rendition board?

I have both and I only see the jerks when using the Voodoo 2. The 8MB AGP Rendition card that I have doesn't jerk like the Voodoo 2 card does. It will slow down but doesn't jerk. I also prefer the image quality of the Rendition board over the Voodoo 2 in GPL. I would almost bet money that you would see the same jerkiness in GPL using a PCI based 4MB (possibly even an 8MB) Rendition board in a PII 400 MHz system. Alex

There's no need for frame rates above 30, simply because the eye can't tell the difference between 30 and 50 fps... If the framerate is limited by the graphics board, you'll experience sluggish of non-respondant gameplay, because then the computer would wait for the graphics board to finish before processing the input... If the graphics board can keep up, 30 fps is more than enough!!! ---Asgeir---

Quoted text (27 lines)

> SNAFU skrev i meddelandet > >>Hmmm, lets hope so! :) > >>Thomas Heineman > >I hope I am. Let me just stress that hot-lapping with no other cars is > >ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC. Add some cars = major framerate stuttering. It looks > >similar to both the Quake2 mouse movement jerkiness problem (until they > >fixed it), and games that have major texture thrashing problems (although I > >not saying it IS texture thrashing, it just gives a similar effect). And it > >doesn't do it all the time. > >It is definitely a case of the CHANGE in framerate that messes things up. > If > >the entire race ran at a constant 18fps (or even 8fps - being a veteran of > >gp1 on an A500 :-0 ) I'd be more than happy.... > >Pete Tabram > Good to hear that the quake staff fixed the problem in quake, > that leaves me with some kind of hope for a patch if it isnt fixed already. > And I couldnt agree more....its absolutly the cange in framerate thats > the problem, not the framerate itself. (although id love to race 20 cars > at steady 50fps ;) > Thomas Heineman

Bzzzt... thanks for playing, we have some lively parting gifts for you. =) 10-14fps gives the illusion of motion for a series of frames, and is the range usually used by cartoons which are often 12fps. This turns into the perception of smooth motion somewhere in the mid 20's, right at about the speed most movies (at least in the US) are shown, that being 24fps. However the human eye is able to visually detect flicker usually up into the 75-80fps range, and this upper limit is not coincidentally pretty close to minimum recommended 75Hz refresh rate for your monitor. It has also been shown through research (one such study at the Eye Research Institute in Boston a few years back) that 1/200 of a second (200fps) is the threshold for physiological response to visual stimulus. Eric

On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:39:26 +0200, "asgeir nes?en" >There's no need for frame rates above 30, simply because the eye can't tell the >difference between 30 and 50 fps... <Sigh> is it already time for that discussion to come around again? Please go and search DejaNews for reasons as to why the above is wrong. It's been discussed WAY too much here already. Cheers! John

> There's no need for frame rates above 30, simply because the eye can't tell the > difference between 30 and 50 fps... If the framerate is limited by the graphics > board, you'll experience sluggish of non-respondant gameplay, because then the > computer would wait for the graphics board to finish before processing the > input... If the graphics board can keep up, 30 fps is more than enough!!! er, that's wrong:) During some experimenting with some Glide programs i've written i had a rotating object spinning at a moderate rate at various refresh rates. 30fps was noticably "stepping" while 60fps or 75fps gave a very very much smoother impression. 30fps is *enough* for excellent sim gameplay - but you *can* tell the difference between that and 60fps.

agreed - the rotating cube thing really brought the difference in frame rates home to me. GPL at what I reckon is about 10fps (with all detail off) is difficult. .

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > There's no need for frame rates above 30, simply because the eye can't tell the > > difference between 30 and 50 fps... If the framerate is limited by the graphics > > board, you'll experience sluggish of non-respondant gameplay, because then the > > computer would wait for the graphics board to finish before processing the > > input... If the graphics board can keep up, 30 fps is more than enough!!! > er, that's wrong:) > During some experimenting with some Glide programs i've written i had > a rotating object spinning at a moderate rate at various refresh > rates. 30fps was noticably "stepping" while 60fps or 75fps gave a > very very much smoother impression. > 30fps is *enough* for excellent sim gameplay - but you *can* tell > the difference between that and 60fps.

-- In a feeble attempt to thwart spammers I have altered my email address. Remove the obvious bit before replying.

am.runrun.demon.co.uk> writes I wish I read that before I spent time on a reply (now deleted) :-/ I shall learn from this... Cu -- Mike Wallace [Member of the Worlds Greatest GP2 Hotlap League]

On Sun, 20 Sep 1998 00:23:40 +0100, Michael C Wallace

Quoted text (7 lines)

>am.runrun.demon.co.uk> writes >><Sigh> is it already time for that discussion to come around again? >>Please go and search DejaNews for reasons as to why the above is >>wrong. It's been discussed WAY too much here already. >I wish I read that before I spent time on a reply (now deleted) :-/ >I shall learn from this...

Funny, that's what I said the LAST time that point was made :-) Never mind, we can both get 'em next time! Cheers! John

I don't get this, if you're able to run your monitor at 30 hz, you'd get effects because the fluorescent screen wouldn't be able to hold the colour until the next draw, and the result would look awful, quite independent of the frame rate... The refresh is very important for a good visual quality. This has to do with how the screen works, NOT how the eye works... ---Asgeir---

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >snipped< > er, that's wrong:) > During some experimenting with some Glide programs i've written i had > a rotating object spinning at a moderate rate at various refresh > rates. 30fps was noticably "stepping" while 60fps or 75fps gave a > very very much smoother impression. > 30fps is *enough* for excellent sim gameplay - but you *can* tell > the difference between that and 60fps.

What a nice welcome for the odd new guy at this NG! Come on! Are your only worries reading posts on a subject that is of no interest to you? Besides: This issue is of utmost importance in the development of graphics boards and in turn future generations of racing sims. Should the developers go for high framerates (typical 75 fps and 75 hz refresh), or should they go for fewer frames (30 fps) and higher frequency physics simulation? I think I'd rather play a sim with 30 fps and 300 hz physics sim (how come this figure is close to the GPL figure?), than 75 fps and 50 hz physics sim... ---Asgeir---

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:39:26 +0200, "asgeir nes?en" > >There's no need for frame rates above 30, simply because the eye can't tell the > >difference between 30 and 50 fps... > <Sigh> is it already time for that discussion to come around again? > Please go and search DejaNews for reasons as to why the above is > wrong. It's been discussed WAY too much here already. > Cheers! > John

er.... i was talking about the program redrawing from 30fps or so up to 75fps - not the monitor refresh, which i usually always try to run at 75Hz. i know all about low refresh rates... the screen resolution i ran on my Amiga barely managed 48Hz... and that was BAD :)

Quoted text (21 lines)

> I don't get this, if you're able to run your monitor at 30 hz, you'd get effects > because the fluorescent screen wouldn't be able to hold the colour until the next > draw, and the result would look awful, quite independent of the frame rate... > The refresh is very important for a good visual quality. This has to do with how the > screen works, NOT how the eye works... > ---Asgeir--- > > >snipped< > > er, that's wrong:) > > During some experimenting with some Glide programs i've written i had > > a rotating object spinning at a moderate rate at various refresh > > rates. 30fps was noticably "stepping" while 60fps or 75fps gave a > > very very much smoother impression. > > 30fps is *enough* for excellent sim gameplay - but you *can* tell > > the difference between that and 60fps.

The framerate thing is quite important, I don't think parting gifts are in place here... Besides, the more people tell me to stay off the framerate/eye thing, the more I will nag (I'm sorry, it's my nature)... Anyway, thanks for replying in a orderly fashion without claiming the subject to be all dead and finished... The eye is a very complex sensor, and it responds differently on different inputs. For instance a flash from a camera is detected, even when the pulse is very short (1/200th of a sec). The changes in intensity gives probably the fastest respons... This kind of vision isn't very important in race car driving. The eye responds to movement in the peripheral vision (in other words the sides of the track, kerbs etc), but I doubt this kind of vision to be sensitive to 75 fps instead of 30 fps. The periphery vision is a very important part of race car driving viewing techniques... The focus zone is the most sensitive part of the vision, perceiving colour, text, changes etc. Still I doubt that the eye would be able to tell the difference between 30 and 75... I have never done any experiments or read any scientific article on the matter, but this is how I think intuitively it is, for what that's worth. My bottom line is: The higher the framerate, the better. The best is to sit in that race car and drive, this would make the eye work at its best! Anyhow, I think the flicker etc that we're talking about is monitor effects, not framerate and eye effects. A low monitor refresh makes the single pictures fade. "Fade" means change in intensity, and the eye is extremely sensitive to this. A monitor with high refresh (120hz) and low frame rate (30 fps) will give quite different results than say low refresh (60 hz) and the same framerate (30fps). It's the refresh/framerate interaction that makes the visiual quality. With a 120 hz refresh, the monitor would be capable of drawing the 30fps picture four times, and this would yield a rock steady image. Tell me if I'm wrong... ---Asgeir---

Quoted text (22 lines)

> Bzzzt... thanks for playing, we have some lively parting gifts for you. > =) > 10-14fps gives the illusion of motion for a series of frames, and is the > range usually used by cartoons which are often 12fps. This turns into > the perception of smooth motion somewhere in the mid 20's, right at > about the speed most movies (at least in the US) are shown, that being > 24fps. However the human eye is able to visually detect flicker usually > up into the 75-80fps range, and this upper limit is not coincidentally > pretty close to minimum recommended 75Hz refresh rate for your monitor. > It has also been shown through research (one such study at the Eye > Research Institute in Boston a few years back) that 1/200 of a second > (200fps) is the threshold for physiological response to visual stimulus. > Eric > >There's no need for frame rates above 30, simply because the eye can't > tell the > >difference between 30 and 50 fps...

Actually your peripheral vision is more sensitive. - Eric

Hi Eric, On the subject of peripheral vision, can you tell us something about the choice of the letterbox view for GPL ? I've been running the demo for weeks and I still find it off putting. Thanks Andy

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Actually your peripheral vision is more sensitive. > - Eric > >The eye responds to movement in the peripheral vision (in other words > the > >sides of the track, kerbs etc), but I doubt this kind of vision to be > >sensitive to 75 fps instead of 30 fps.

On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:09:12 +0200, "asgeir nes?en" >What a nice welcome for the odd new guy at this NG! Come on! Are your only worries >reading posts on a subject that is of no interest to you? I could have ; a) Wasted my own time and everyone else's by re-hashing something which has already been discussed ad-nauseam. b) Direct him to a place where he can find all the information he needs. Why? A ***game at 300hz is still a ***game, simply running the physics engine at high speed doesn't make it good. If the engine works (like GPL) and requires 288hz to generate good results and/or meaningful data then 288hz is great, but speeding up Prost Grand Prix's physics won't make them empirically better. From personal experience frame-rate continues to make a difference even between 50fps and 60fps, and this can be easily seen while playing Quake or QuakeWorld where instantaneous perception, reaction and feedback are paramount. Running at higher frame-rate consistently brings better results, a fact which is quite amazing really if you subscribe to the notion that we, as a species, are not supposed to be able to tell the difference. Cheers! John

(clip) At least the figure for perception of frame rate has risen from 24 to 30 :) People have claimed on here that you can't see a difference in anything over 24 fps! If you've never done any experiments, or read an article, how do you pull a figure of 30 fps from the air? I think there is a point where higher frame rates won't make driving any easier, probably at around the 30 fps mark. That would have more to do with human reflex time than with perception of the eye. If you are getting information faster than your ability to react to it, then it should be OK. From my experience, though, 50 fps would definitely look better than 30 fps, and I can see a difference between the two. The most important thing would be to _never_ drop below 30 fps. -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

I don't think u can see the different beyond 30fps. Your eyes can't tell the diffenences unless u have cat eyes ;-) >On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:09:12 +0200, "asgeir nes?en" >>What a nice welcome for the odd new guy at this NG! Come on! Are your only worries

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>reading posts on a subject that is of no interest to you? >I could have ; >a) Wasted my own time and everyone else's by re-hashing something >which has already been discussed ad-nauseam. >b) Direct him to a place where he can find all the information he >needs. >>and in turn future generations of racing sims. Should the developers go

for high >>framerates (typical 75 fps and 75 hz refresh), or should they go for fewer frames >>(30 fps) and higher frequency physics simulation? I think I'd rather play a sim with >>30 fps and 300 hz physics sim (how come this figure is close to the GPL figure?),

Quoted text (18 lines)

>>than 75 fps and 50 hz physics sim... >Why? A ***game at 300hz is still a ***game, simply running the >physics engine at high speed doesn't make it good. If the engine works >(like GPL) and requires 288hz to generate good results and/or >meaningful data then 288hz is great, but speeding up Prost Grand >Prix's physics won't make them empirically better. >From personal experience frame-rate continues to make a difference >even between 50fps and 60fps, and this can be easily seen while >playing Quake or QuakeWorld where instantaneous perception, reaction >and feedback are paramount. Running at higher frame-rate consistently >brings better results, a fact which is quite amazing really if you >subscribe to the notion that we, as a species, are not supposed to be >able to tell the difference. >Cheers! >John

Yes you can (see my earlier post for details). - Eric

>I don't think u can see the different beyond 30fps. Your eyes can't tell the >diffenences unless u have cat eyes ;-) Says who? At 30fps my friend and I are equal in Quake. If I have 60fps and he has 30fps I kick his ***big time, and if he has 60fps he does the same to me. I'm not too worried if it can be scientifically proven that it makes a difference, the fact that the results improve is good enough for me as it is results I need, not proof. Then again, If you don't find any difference it's all the more money you can save, so lucky you! :-) Cheers! John

>my friend and I are equal in Quake hehe, yeah but that's not saying much <GGG> Mike.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >I don't think u can see the different beyond 30fps. Your eyes can't tell the > >diffenences unless u have cat eyes ;-) > Says who? At 30fps my friend and I are equal in Quake. If I have 60fps > and he has 30fps I kick his ***big time, and if he has 60fps he does > the same to me. I'm not too worried if it can be scientifically proven > that it makes a difference, the fact that the results improve is good > enough for me as it is results I need, not proof.

Are you sure that's because you see better at 60 fps? Or is it because the program can accept your inputs faster at 60 fps? I'm almost one hundred % sure the latter is the case. When a computer draws 30 fps, the time required for the input to be processed is two times the amount of time when drawing 60 fps. The response time is doubled from 60 fps to 30 fps. A big response time makes you worse at Quake playing, NOT the amount of frames per second... When that is said, I'd like to point out that the response time is also very important in racing sims, and that a low response time is to be strived for. My point is that the frame rate is in a way an indicator of how pressed the cpu is, not an indicator of how well the picture is perceived by the eye. The eye hardly notices the difference between 30 and 60 fps, but the "feel", the response does. There are other ways to decrease the response time, for instance using a graphics board that demands less of the cpu (I think one of the best chips must be the Rendition V2100 in this respect). A low frame rate can be symptoms of 1) A hard pressed cpu, that can't keep up the triangle feed to the graphics board 2) A hard pressed graphics board Of these cases, the no.1 creates the worst response, simply because the cpu also processes the input... I find a difference, but there is much more to this than if a game has 60 fps or not! As I said earlier; By some strange reason, GPL gives around 30 - 35 fps and physics sim frequency 288 hz and NOT 120 fps and 20 hz physics calculation... In my view, Papyrus is spot on, spending the cpu cycles on physics rather than fps... Besides, GPL prooves that fill rate isn't everything to a racing sim. ---Asgeir---

Your PS/2 and serial ports only sample the mouse at about 40 and 44Hz respectively, and Quake2 only samples the controller input at 10Hz. - Eric

> I think there is a point where higher frame rates won't make driving > any easier, probably at around the 30 fps mark. I believe it's higher than that...read on. The other thing that isn't being discussed is that if you can generate 50 new frames per second (with independent vehicle positions for each), the images that you'll see will be 1/50th of a second "outdated" or extrapolated to their actual displayed time. If you only see 30 per second, you'll have more of a delay, or require more extrapolation in the displayed data, neither of which contributes positively to car control... :-) ---Jim

> I think I'd rather play a sim with 30 fps and 300 hz physics sim > (how come this figure is close to the GPL figure?), than 75 fps and > 50 hz physics sim... What possible good would it do to display more frames than you had done game engine calculations for (as some of the frames would necessarily be pixel-perfect duplicates assuming a deterministic renderer)? In your second example, I'd argue that the TRUE framerate could only be 50Hz. ---Jim

> Are you sure that's because you see better at 60 fps? Or is it > because the program can accept your inputs faster at 60 fps? I'm > almost one hundred % sure the latter is the case. When a computer > draws 30 fps, the time required for the input to be processed is two > times the amount of time when drawing 60 fps. Not in Papyrus sims. Papy sims sample the input devices and calculate physics at a rate independent of the graphics frame rate. So, in the case of Papy sims, inputs don't get accepted any "faster". What happens is you can have a tighter feedback loop between the output (the generated frames) and the physics engine, allowing you to drive more precisely. Does it really matter the precise physiological effects, or is the fact that the feel of the game improves sufficient? I personally believe you're dead wrong on the physiological effects, but I also believe that's largely unimportant, since the real issue is whether the game play is qualitatively better at higher frame rates. I believe it is. ---Jim

On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:40:09 +0100, "Mike Laskey" >>my friend and I are equal in Quake >hehe, yeah but that's not saying much <GGG> It was YOU I was talking about wide-boy, and I thought I was being generous.... ;-) Cheers! John

Bingo - that's it precisely. As I described before about Quake, what I seek is not proof of frame-rate improving my visual feedbakc or whatever, the fact that there is a difference in socre is sufficient. What causes that difference is arguable for whoever is interested, but while they're doing that I've probably got all the goodies and too busy enjoying myself :-) Cheers! John

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > I think I'd rather play a sim with 30 fps and 300 hz physics sim > > (how come this figure is close to the GPL figure?), than 75 fps and > > 50 hz physics sim... > What possible good would it do to display more frames than you had > done game engine calculations for (as some of the frames would > necessarily be pixel-perfect duplicates assuming a deterministic > renderer)?

Yes, of course, I should have said "than 75 fps and 75hz physics sim", that would make more sense... Of course, just another case of a little brain fade... ---Asgeir---

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Are you sure that's because you see better at 60 fps? Or is it > > because the program can accept your inputs faster at 60 fps? I'm > > almost one hundred % sure the latter is the case. When a computer > > draws 30 fps, the time required for the input to be processed is two > > times the amount of time when drawing 60 fps. > Not in Papyrus sims. Papy sims sample the input devices and calculate > physics at a rate independent of the graphics frame rate. So, in the > case of Papy sims, inputs don't get accepted any "faster". What > happens is you can have a tighter feedback loop between the output > (the generated frames) and the physics engine, allowing you to drive > more precisely.

Yes, that must be the way to express it. I agree, I really do. My only point was that there is more to a sim than the framerate, although badly put (but I guess we can all agree on that anyway, so I didn't have to argue on that). But, when it comes to the physiological effects, there seems to be extremely little hard facts, and I'd like to know if anyone has ever read or seen anything documenting eye perception, because I do NOT accept sayings like: "I play better quake in 75 fps than 30 fps, therefore my eye can tell the difference between 75 and 30 fps...". But, as you rightfully say, the feel in the racing sim counts no end, if this feel is created in the eye or in the hand, that's completely unimportant as long as the feel is good. ---Asgeir--- /Totally out of bounds on knowledge, but who isn't?

The input sampling makes control less precise at higher framerates in Quake, thus the popularity of m_filter to mask this as well as cl_maxfps to cap the max framerate at 35-40 which is below the sampling rate for a normal PS/2 and serial mouse (with a USB mouse this can be overcome due to it's 120Hz sampling rate). Those that play better at 75fps do so as a result of the visual framerate increase, in spite of the control deficiency. - Eric

>It was YOU I was talking about wide-boy, and I thought I was being >generous.... ;-) Equal with me at Quake? Get yourself online NOW :-) Mike.

> I don't think u can see the different beyond 30fps. Your eyes can't tell the > diffenences unless u have cat eyes ;-) You can easily tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. We have customers who REQUIRE rock solid 60fps because that is the only way you can see detail at high speed (eg a high speed train simulator had to have this frame rate. At 30fps you can't read the signs as you rush past). Commerial/military flight sims mandate 60fps. This is also the reason iMax is 60fps, why motion looks blurred on film (only 24fps) etc etc. You can absolutely tell the difference. -- Bill Ryder Silicon Graphics New Zealand SGI V-Mail: 234 1456 Systems Engineer Ph: (+64 4) 494 6326 DISCLAIMER: Unless explicitly stated all opinions are mine not SGI's

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> I don't think u can see the different beyond 30fps. Your eyes can't tell the >> diffenences unless u have cat eyes ;-) >You can easily tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. >We have customers who REQUIRE rock solid 60fps because that is the only >way you can see detail at high speed (eg a high speed train simulator >had to have this frame rate. At 30fps you can't read the signs as you >rush past). Commerial/military flight sims mandate 60fps.

SGI always was a treat at german CeBIT: they'd always have the newest version of their flight sim ready to demo, with network play, sound, and all the stuff. I loved it, especially I remember it to be the first flight sim where you could fly through a sidewinders smoke trail. Just great, and that was back in what, 1990? Too bad they've become such an NT shop recently, and if only more ppl at SGI had been racing fans instead of flying aces we might see decent network play in today's racing sims, too. (of course a linux port of gpl/f1rs would achieve the same fluent networking play that some win-only companies aim for these days ;-). Uwe -- Spam-proof e-mail: Uwe Schuerkamp <hoover at telemedia . de> http://www.telemedia.de/~hoover ////// Phone: +49-5241-80-10-66 Best of Scottish Folk: http://home.pages.de/~nsg >>> Blue Ribbon Campaign: Support Free Speech on the Internet <<<

On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 22:12:09 +0100, "Mike Laskey" >Equal with me at Quake? Get yourself online NOW :-) Equal? Who said that? I didn't think I was THAT bad... Cheers! John

> SGI always was a treat at german CeBIT: they'd always have the newest > version of their flight sim ready to demo, with network play, sound, > and all the stuff. I loved it, especially I remember it to be the > first flight sim where you could fly through a sidewinders smoke > trail. Just great, and that was back in what, 1990? Too bad they've > become such an NT shop recently, OK OK - I will bite. We are not becoming an NT 'shop'. One of our focusses is visual computing and NT will be another piece of that. We have and will continue to have UNIX workstations/servers. There are things we do in IRIX that are IMPOSSIBLE in NT. Our customers demand and will pay for those features (eg, absolutely rock solid 60fps, no texture load hits, nothing zero zilch will change the framerate). What we are doing with NT is bringing some of our technology into the NT workstation price bracket. Some would say bringing it to the 'masses' but a workstation is not a sub $2k PC. Of course we haven't said *exactly* what we are bringing to the market yet (don't ask me!) Yep. Unfortunately only the flyboys can justify the expense of a high end simulator (an F16 is slightly more expensive than a car :-). -- Bill Ryder Silicon Graphics New Zealand SGI V-Mail: 234 1456 Systems Engineer Ph: (+64 4) 494 6326 DISCLAIMER: Unless explicitly stated all opinions are mine not SGI's